IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV ON THE 03^rd OF MARCH, 2022 WRIT PETITION No.4959 of 2015 Between:-

STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, JABALPUR.

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE AND

1. TARUN KUMAR PRADHAN SON OF SHRI ROOPCHAND PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BEHIND MOHAN TALKIES, PURENA TALAB, DAMOH (M.P.)

2. DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF CONGRESS, 5/235, PRAGATI STATE BANK COLONY, VIJAY NAGAR, JABALPUR.

....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PRAVEEN YADAV – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, passed the following:

ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P/15) and award dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P/16) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short “CGIT”) in case No. CGIT/LC- 241/1997, whereby, the order dated 06.09.1995 imposing punishment of termination of the respondent-workman, has been set aside and the respondent- workman has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back wages.

2. The facts of the case are that respondent/workman was appointed in the petitioner-Bank on 01.09.1975 on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. He was confirmed in service w.e.f 01.03.1976. On account of some financial irregularities relating to withdrawal of certain amount, a charge sheet dated 11.03.1993 (Annexure P-1) was served on the respondent- workman, wherein, as many as 06 charges were leveled against him. The charges are mainly related to fraudulent withdrawal of certain amount with an object to take wrongful pecuniary advantage, causing loss to the Bank, utilizing official position and violating the rules- procedure applicable to the employees of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent-workman was required to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The respondent-workman denied all the charges vide communication dated 25.11.1993 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was directed to be conducted.

3. Shri R.K.Jaiswal, Branch Manager, Nawgaon Branch was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, whereas, Shri A. Shastri, Branch Manager, City Branch, Damoh was appointed as Presenting Officer. Five witnesses were examined in order to prove the charges against the respondent- workman. After departmental inquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority on 14.02.1995 (Annexure P-3), wherein, all the charges were found to be proved against the respondent-workman. The disciplinary authority after considering the material available on record was, prima facie, of the opinion that the charges were found proved and, accordingly, an action was required to be taken against the respondent-workman. Pursuant to it, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent- workman on 25.4.1995 (Annexure P-4) proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority also provided opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent- workman. Being satisfied with the material available on record against the respondent- workman, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment dated 06.09.1995 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman preferred an appeal (Annexure P-8) which has also been dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated

08.11.1995 (Annexure P-9).

4. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner-Bank, the respondent- workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to punishment and the appropriate government referred the following dispute to the CGIT for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of the State Bank of India, Gwalior Branch in terminating the se